The interpretation of clinical laboratory tests commonly involves a concept in comparing a patient's results to a laboratory test “reference range.” In general, a reference range can be a set of values used by a health professional to interpret a set of medical test results. In some instances, the range may be defined as a set of values 95% of the normal population falls within. The reference range is also commonly referred to as the “normal range” or “reference interval.” For simplicity, the term “reference range” is used herein.
The use of reference ranges can complicate the interpretation of numerical laboratory results, however. For example, some conventional reference range systems present physicians with a plethora of units and numerical results, each of which can vary significantly between laboratories. Even within a particular laboratory, numerical laboratory results and associated reference ranges can vary due to, for example, the methods, specimen types, and instruments employed. Accordingly, there can be variations with the “normal” patients used in the development of reference ranges between sexes, age groups, and races. This can further add to the confusion.
Computer storage of results using reference ranges can also be complicated. For example, some systems may transfer and store reference ranges with the associated laboratory results. Further, some systems may require use of reference range tables stored on hospital systems sharing laboratory data and strictly match those tables to those on a laboratory computer system. With the latter option, archived data on information systems and associated reports can often times be invalid, because reference ranges frequently change with newer diagnostic methods, and archived data may have been generated based on diagnostic methods based on older, out-of-date reference ranges. On some computers systems, a laboratorian may need to develop additional codes for newer diagnostic methods and store new ranges using new results codes. Hence, more permanent results codes may need to be linked to multiple results codes in order to have accurate readings. On the other hand, if reference ranges are stored with each associated result, reports on archived data may be generated much more readily. However, storing a laboratory result with an associated reference range can require additional storage space.
Another challenge has been with regards to data portability. In recent years, patients may be referred to a number of different point-of-care sites (e.g., clinics, emergency rooms, doctor's office, etc.). Each of these point-of-care sites may use different diagnostic methods and instrumentation and, thus, reference ranges and results may likewise vary significantly between point-of-care sites due to the use of different diagnostic methods and instrumentation. Accordingly, a standardization of all laboratory data, regardless of the testing method, could be very useful; especially as patients move between various points-of-care.
A further challenge can relate to displaying data in a useful format. Graphing and trending multiple laboratory results on laboratory computers and computerized spreadsheets can be complicated due to the use of varying units, ranges, and resulting scale variations between various analytes (as referred to herein, an “analyte” can be any substance that is quantified or detected by an experimental procedure). For this reason, plotting three or fewer variables on a chart can be many times the most that can be displayed without making the chart too complicated to read and use. On the other hand, if all laboratory results where normalized, plotting and displaying a large number of test results could be possible on the same graph using a single scale.
Another challenge can relate to providing an intuitive method and system for analyzing and reporting results. A problem with conventional laboratory results reporting is that results are many times not intuitive. For example, physicians often times have to memorize or refer to separate reference range charts to interpret results. To accommodate this deficiency, some laboratory computers can generate “result flags” for high and low results, critical results, and flags that signify results are beyond delta range checks. Notification limits can also be printed and flagged on the chart report. These additional flags, or letters, are many times cryptic and poorly understood by physicians, however. They can also clutter the report and make trending and tracking of results more difficult.
Yet another challenge can be data clutter. Printing reference ranges on reports may be needed in some instances, as these ranges may need to be present for proper interpretation of results. In some instances, section of the report containing the references reference ranges can take up significantly space on the printed report, and, at times, may even take up more space than the actual test results. As a result, it may be difficult and time consuming for physicians to locate pertinent laboratory data in some conventional reports.
Storage of measurement data can provide another challenge. Storage of measurement units with results can take up a substantial amount of memory capacity. If units are included on the reference ranges, additional storage space is typically needed. Moreover, some laboratories and hospitals, due to disk storage limitations, purge laboratory data to tape after thirty days, for example. This can make the purged data unavailable for trending and tracking purposes. However, if laboratory results could be stored without reference ranges and without units, more memory storage capacity could be made available, thereby allowing laboratory results to remain potentially available or “on-line” for a longer period of time.
Consequently, as discussed above, the present methods and systems of reporting numerical laboratory results have many deficiencies. Accordingly, there is a need for new methods and systems for reporting test results that solves some or all of the above-described deficiencies.